Although the formulation,
questioning and rejection of hypotheses takes place within changing social,
political and academic settings, we need not conclude that all descriptions
and explanations of the past are simply constructs. Some hypotheses
are supported by more compelling evidence than others; it is not impossible
to discriminate between more true, less true and simply wrong explanationsindependently,
that is, of researchers' politics.

Below are several
interpretive theories and hypotheses that are not mutually exclusive.
Hunter-gatherer and historic rock art, unlike most Western image-making,
does not necessarily comprise many identifiable categories that deal,
independently, with a range of issues, and that serve an almost infinite
number of functions.

For example, it is
a Eurocentric notion that the rock face was meaningless, a tabula rasa
on which artists could paint whatever they wished; in many parts of
the world, the rock face is a veil between this world and the spirit realm.
Utilizing conventional art history approaches will not necessarily help
us discern the meaning of the rock art images.

Some of the most important
issues in rock art research today are: Who made the art, and in what social
circumstances? Why did they make it? Who viewed the art, and how do viewers
derive meaning?